lost of compression on rebuilt engine, need help

i just recently rebuilt my 1965 289. bone stock 289. i was going to started for the first time today. i crank it it a few times , it sounded weird when it was cranking not normal at all. i checked compression cylinders #1-4,5, and 8 had 0psi. performed cylinder leak down test, all 6 cylinders 90% leaking.
cylinder 6 and 7 150psi. block was rebored from std. 030. new piston, rings, cam lifters,cam, int. and ex. valves, installed, machine shop recondition rods, crank was cut to .010, internal balance, heads rebuild with new valves and seats. A LOT OF MONEY invested, any ideas what's wrong with it. i would hate to remove th engine. i added a few drops of oil in the bad cylinders to see if the pistons ring were bad compression did not raise.:CRY:

The only time I've ever heard of an engine COMPLETELY losing compression like this is when the assembler didn't offset the rings when they were putting the motor together. You can't align the ring gaps because making a complete circle out of the compression rings is what gives your motor its compression. This could be especially true if all the cylinders are suffering like this because if a builder puts 1 piston and ring set in wrong, they will probably put them all in wrong.

What he said but check your timing gears and chain for proper alignment

I think the guys have hit it. If you put oil in the cylinders and compression did not come up, it is probably your valves not seating. Either timing is off, or they are not closing when they should for some reason.

Don

Listen to Don, Denny, and Charlie on this. It's such a simple thing and it happens more than you know, especially on a first rebuild. Back up and go simple on the valve train check up.

thanks guys for the input. iam going to check this week. hopefully is my valves not seating.

when you did the leakdown test did you bother to listen around and see where the air was coming from... that can point to your problem a lot faster.... listen to the carb for intake valves, exhaust for exhaust valves, oil fill cap for rings, radiator for head gasket, and other cylinders for cracked cylinder walls.... hopefully that'll confirm that you just need to readjust those valves

Hydraulic camshaft?

It's easy to get the clearances too tight on these.

Pick one of your zero compression cylinders, remove the rockers and pushrods then do a compression test on that cylinder.

You guys are the best! Dont know what I would do without all the great input! Finally had a chance to look at the engine today. i loosen every cylinder rocker arm one by one, recheck compression as i loosen a rocker. found valves to tight. So now i have compression on all cylinders and i have 16 rockers loose.
does anyone have any step by step instructions on how to adjust valves?
thanks
SAL

move each cylinder one by one to TDC, as each one is at tdc tighten the rocker down just to where theres no up and down play in the pushrod and then give it a 1/2 to 3/4 of a turn.... once there run it... then you can also do a hot adjustment which you run it with one valve cover off, loosen each rocker til it starts clattering and then tighten it to where the noise goes away, do each one until their all done, and bolt the valve cover back on and then do the next... take note that it is an oily mess and will help if you have an old valve cover that you can just cut a strip off the top big enough to access the rocker nuts

A stock 289 doesn't have adjustable rockers, they just tighten down to a stop. There are different lengths of pushrods. Check that against specs for your engine.

Pope has a good point. Early 289 was a positive stop stud and fulcrum unit. Were the studs changed out? If the OEM studs were retained, It's a possibility that the valve height wasn't compensated when the valves were ground and now the valve stem tips are too high. 62-68 push rods were 6.804" long. 69-85 were 6.886" long (non-H.O. & non roller engines). Possibly later push rods were used creating a .082" interference in length. There is not much material than can be removed on the heads during milling also. This can make the pushrods "grow" in their geometry especially if they were milled once before. Just some info to chew on.

denny's right on that one..... :D the valves weren't positive stop til 69ish.... bout the same time they went to the 4-bolt balancer i believe

My dad bought three new mid sixties Fords from the dealer he wrenched for. new, not used. They had 289's in all of them. The engines never got replaced with newer and they stayed original. I learned my first valve jobs on these and he taught me the whole tear dear down and installs on these as a kid. My valve lashes were done to the positive stop using 20 ft lbs of torque. This is what I based my post on and Denny's post made me think. So I went to the shop manual shelf and got his old "Ford Bible" out and wanted to make sure that "Old Timer's Disease" wasn't creeping up on me. 1967 Factory edition the dealers used was what I opened up. 221-260-289 valve lash specs were to tighten until the stop and torque to 18-20 ft lbs of torque. Now, my question is to you guys, since my memory serves me as these engines being built in Cleveland, is there a posibility of a canadian plant that used a fully adjustable stud? What other possibilities could there be? I'm not stepping on egos here, I want to learn as much as everybody and find out what or why there's a difference in the info I grew up with and read than all the good info you Ford guys have. By the way I like my GM stuff so I am no way a Ford expert.

According to "How to Rebuild Your smal-block Ford" by Tom Monroe, the first positive stop, rail type rockers appeared in the small block at the 1966 and a half time frame. The book doesn't give an exact month when the change was made.

Right, my 260 was adjustable. The memory's the second thing to go, and I forget what the first thing is!
Still, check the pushrod length and installed height of the valves.

OF100man, later ball rockers were positive stop too, not sure of the year that started.

After a struggle and Denny's help I got the page from my Ford engine manual to upload. 1967 section 7 page7-104. It boggles my mind to find conflicting info from the same source. I can understand old timer's conditions but this makes me go HUH?........:LOL:

That highlighted area was from the previous 6 cyl lash section. I didn't want to post the whole book on here.I porpusely left the firing order below the highted area for the six. I was hoping it would be caught as to let the readers see it was a different engine.

Will all of the different info for the mechanics back then, it's a wonder anything ran without bailing wire and a BFH :LOL:

Those books come from a time when,...bon-ami,saw dust and banna peels were engine additives.......:LOL: j/k Gatta give you kids a hard time!!!!
Ford changed stuff faster than the books could be made:LOL:
Then they used up all the old parts on the new models,meaning if you bought a car or truck in those change over years,they could have anything under the hood.

Be real careful if you are using the Tom Monroe book on how to rebuild your SBF. There are several errors that I have found, and in my case with 351W's. It's an OK book but there is better information available and as pointed out here, there isn't any of it 100% right, depending on the plant it was built in, the day of the week, phase of the moon, heat of the sun and so on with this vintage SB Ford. Accepting that's what differntiates a real Blue Oval person - he makes them run past the Bowties**) :LOL: :LOL:

I wont touch a later Chiltons - they have so many inaccuracies that they become worse then no book. A "for instance" - I needed to replace all 4 ball joints on my '01 F150 4x4, not a really big job but it does take some disassembly. The Chiltons have you removing the CV joints and pulling the front shafts and diassembling the sway bar links. All you need to do is pull the hub, knock the ball joints loose from the spindle with a pickle fork, press out the bottom joint, unbolt the upper A arm for the uppers then reassemble in the opposite order and in about half the time and a quarter of the work.

I guess what I'm trying to say, at least for me, is that most mechanical work, especially on an older design engine that we usually discuss in this forum is common sense and that the "how to" books are a guideline that provides part dimension specifications as well as reassembly clearances and fastener torque values.

Dave forgot to mention if it was getting close to 5:00 pm on Friday. Then you never knew what you were going to get from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nitrowarrior

Dave forgot to mention if it was getting close to 5:00 pm on Friday. Then you never knew what you were going to get from them.

---

Especially if it was a holiday weekend as well and a cold brew and a sweet young lady was waiting as well. ( Now you know why some power plants never ran well either :LOL::HMMM: )

Oops...forgot about that. Brown bottle flue.....:LOL:

hey thats why i love my fords.... you can get parts on your motor from 5 different years, and its all still matching numbers :LOL:

I started up the mustang. it ran great no leaks. i checked compression after i ran the engine 190psi on 7 cylinders the 8th cylinder had 185psi. thanks everyone

you're welcome.... sounds good to me..... not too off..... i personally would run a power balance to see what kind of percentages i'm getting between that 185 and 190..... probably wouldn't come up with anything worthwhile though... and its something more for picking around than being important